yagw
07-13 12:03 PM
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
wallpaper and a Mavs dancer for the
kumar1
05-15 05:34 PM
I also know cases where during the time of campus placement, all A grade companies required US citizenship/Green Card status. Imagine doing a 100K+ investment and then listening to this crap - ooops you do not have GC......right now we are not sponsoring H1-B...........
The way I look at it - Unless I have GC and the freedom to move around in any job or any area, what is the point doing MBA? My hands are still tied with H1-B tag. It is like buying a race car and driving it on an unpaved road. Fee free to disagree.
And I totally understand that GC can take 10+ year if not more.
Sometime ago , I had seen Jack Welch's comments on this ( the last page in Business Week ) where he had mentioned that he respected people who have an online MBA bcoz of the fact that these people were handling a family , kids , a full time job and education, no mean feat ... and that he did not consider their MBA less than another MBA.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
The way I look at it - Unless I have GC and the freedom to move around in any job or any area, what is the point doing MBA? My hands are still tied with H1-B tag. It is like buying a race car and driving it on an unpaved road. Fee free to disagree.
And I totally understand that GC can take 10+ year if not more.
Sometime ago , I had seen Jack Welch's comments on this ( the last page in Business Week ) where he had mentioned that he respected people who have an online MBA bcoz of the fact that these people were handling a family , kids , a full time job and education, no mean feat ... and that he did not consider their MBA less than another MBA.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
2011 Dallas Mavs Dancers
superdude
07-24 12:20 PM
My lawyer is going to submit the 485 WITHOUT a letter from my current employer. This is going to be a concurrent I-140 and I-485 application (140 and 485 applied together).
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
employment letter is not part of initial evidnece per the FAQ issue by USCIS on 07/23/2007. Only signatures and exact fee amounts are part of initial evidence. Sit back and relax now.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
employment letter is not part of initial evidnece per the FAQ issue by USCIS on 07/23/2007. Only signatures and exact fee amounts are part of initial evidence. Sit back and relax now.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
more...
mallu
02-17 01:03 AM
.... African slaves in US didn't become free because they fought with their owners. They became free since President Lincoln decided that slavery had gone on a bit too long.
...
A better example would have been the civil rights movement by Dr. King .
...
A better example would have been the civil rights movement by Dr. King .
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
sheela
07-13 08:53 AM
Let us see the approvals trend till october. I am guessing the PD will move back to MID 2005 or 2004 by October for EB-2 India.
I don't agree. It will stay same or forward in small increments with new fiscal yr numbers available. I am saying so because EB2 I stayed for such long at 04/07 and everyone knows fewer LCs were filed/approved between 04 and 05.
I don't agree. It will stay same or forward in small increments with new fiscal yr numbers available. I am saying so because EB2 I stayed for such long at 04/07 and everyone knows fewer LCs were filed/approved between 04 and 05.
2010 Dallas Mavs Dancers
GCwaitforever
12-26 04:24 PM
Business needs define rules in this country. Western Union was sending money to mexico. Then American Banks started chipping into that business, accepting different documents as valid for money transfer. You get the drift.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
more...
msgrewal81
02-19 08:17 AM
What do you wish? You need gc the moment you enter the country? If anyone who stays 5 years get green card.That is excellent if legal or illegal immigrant. This is apart from 140K regular quota. This will reduce backlog substantially.
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
hair A Dallas Mavericks Dancers
WeldonSprings
02-13 05:12 PM
By ensuring that Indians do not get H-1 B visas and don't require their services; the US Government is building Trade Barriers in terms of Indian Goods sold there!!!
WE DO NOT WANT COLGATE, VICKS, COCA-COLA AND PEPSI IN INDIA. THROW THEM OUT! THEY REMIND ME OF BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY!!!
Skilled immigrant not mucho good googling....:D
The Indian Consulate, New York, provides information on the relevant
Visas. It appears you will have to apply for an Employment Visa. There
is detailed information on the page and a Visa Application Form. I
note there is also a Journalists Visa which is for three months. I
don?t know if this is applicable to your situation.
This is some of the relevant information.
EMPLOYMENT VISA: Employment visas are initially issued for one-year
stay. A copy of the contract with the employer has to be enclosed.
Kindly note that Employment Visa is given only for jobs that require
very high level of skills and expertise. This can be extended by
Foreigners Regional Registration Office in India, if the job contract
continues. Spouses and children are granted co-terminus entry visas on
request.
http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=23
WE DO NOT WANT COLGATE, VICKS, COCA-COLA AND PEPSI IN INDIA. THROW THEM OUT! THEY REMIND ME OF BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY!!!
Skilled immigrant not mucho good googling....:D
The Indian Consulate, New York, provides information on the relevant
Visas. It appears you will have to apply for an Employment Visa. There
is detailed information on the page and a Visa Application Form. I
note there is also a Journalists Visa which is for three months. I
don?t know if this is applicable to your situation.
This is some of the relevant information.
EMPLOYMENT VISA: Employment visas are initially issued for one-year
stay. A copy of the contract with the employer has to be enclosed.
Kindly note that Employment Visa is given only for jobs that require
very high level of skills and expertise. This can be extended by
Foreigners Regional Registration Office in India, if the job contract
continues. Spouses and children are granted co-terminus entry visas on
request.
http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=23
more...
trueguy
08-27 12:44 PM
As per this link and comments by the Director of USCIS-
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
hot mavs-dancers
virald
07-24 12:05 PM
Virald,
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
srikondoji
I am not trying to scare anyone. For you the thread might be stupid, not for me. Please keep your negative remarks to yourself. Just the fact that people are discussing in this thread invalidate your kind of comments.
Also, my assumption was people come here to discuss issues, when they have doubts. No one is a lawyer here, certainly not me, hence my statement. If you are so scared please do not visit this thread.
Peace.
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
srikondoji
I am not trying to scare anyone. For you the thread might be stupid, not for me. Please keep your negative remarks to yourself. Just the fact that people are discussing in this thread invalidate your kind of comments.
Also, my assumption was people come here to discuss issues, when they have doubts. No one is a lawyer here, certainly not me, hence my statement. If you are so scared please do not visit this thread.
Peace.
more...
house Dallas Mavericks Dancers
gc28262
04-10 11:14 AM
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
tattoo MAVS.com
va_dude
03-19 08:44 AM
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
more...
pictures The Dallas Mavericks are back
senthil1
04-04 11:43 AM
It is true. But either Corporate America or Lawyers does not want to address the issues raised by Unions or anti immigrants. They want free ride and does not care about working class. No bold leadership in congress to address both sides issues. Congress members are siding with any one of two groups. Everyone knows that compromise will easily pass. But compromise will not give free ride to any group. Basically moderate H1b and GC increase with protection to US workers without wage pressurw will get most of the congress support. Even with illegal immigration also it is easy to pass if they give citizenship to existing people and allow more workers with complete protection to US workers without wage pressure will get most of congress support.
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
dresses Dallas Mavericks 2003-2004
greenlight
08-21 01:32 AM
Thanks for your response. ;)
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
Can someone respond to this question, please?
thanks.
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
Can someone respond to this question, please?
thanks.
more...
makeup Dallas Mavs Dancers
va_il
07-04 07:48 PM
Details behind your theory and their source information please
girlfriend Dallas Mavericks vs Boston
malaGCPahije
12-10 03:57 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
hairstyles Dallas Mavericks Dancers
vin13
11-11 09:23 AM
The conference call was not organized by core. It was just 2 of us who discussed on the donor forum and came up with a draft letter to get clarrification from DOS. I suggest the first step is to get clarrification of the quarterly spillover with DOS regarding their process. Can any of you get an appointment with Charles Oppenheim (Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at DOS)?
After working several hours and we come up with the draft which was posted earlier on this thread. And for that, someone gives me a Red.....
vin13,
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
After working several hours and we come up with the draft which was posted earlier on this thread. And for that, someone gives me a Red.....
vin13,
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
browncow
05-26 11:26 PM
I carry my GC, passport etc even if i get out of my house to my lawn.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
jsb
03-09 12:27 PM
This is horrible. Does not make much sense.
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
0 comments:
Post a Comment